-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why does world population grow when there is reincarnation?
- Thread starter Marble
- Start date
What we perceive as an increase in population might simply be a small local change, a drop in a bucket that got slightly larger. Over long enough periods of time, over large enough spans of creation, we would see that things like this are cyclical.
As for the creation of souls, first we have to agree there is such a thing as a soul and agree on a definition for it. I believe such a thing exists, and the rest is illusion. Illusion defined as a misperception, not non-existence.
I like the way you put this.
As for the creation of souls, first we have to agree there is such a thing as a soul and agree on a definition for it. I believe such a thing exists, and the rest is illusion. Illusion defined as a misperception, not non-existence.
I like the way you put this.
ratikala
Istha gosthi
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
This:
There is no reason to think that such a thing as souls exist.
Edit: Sorry. Just noticed that this was in the DIR section. I'll refrain from participating further.
There is no reason to think that such a thing as souls exist.
Edit: Sorry. Just noticed that this was in the DIR section. I'll refrain from participating further.
You see to me this is like saying that life force and consciousness is artificial and may not exist.
Is it the idea that life-force and consciousness can exist as an individual unit that is a strange or unlikely idea to you?
chinu
chinu
indian_buddhist
Member
what takes birth again is NOT the soul but is conciousness. The Conciousness still having bad karma left in it needs a material body and it takes birth again.
indian_buddhist
Member
According to Hinduism, Conciousness and Soul are not one but Conciousness is a Quality of Atman (Self). Hinduism clearly states that there is a permanent entity called as a Soul which is infinite, unchanging, eternal and static.
Buddhism clearly rejects this concept. It states there is no such permanent entity called as a Soul (Anatman) like the one a Hindu believes and everything including the conciousness keeps changing and is never static at any point of time.
How does consciousness carry karma if it is not permanent and ever changing?
You are wrong IMO.
indian_buddhist
Member
. Anatman(NO SELF or NO SOUL) , Anacca (Impermanence) and Dukka (Suffering) are the 3 Characteristics of Buddhism.
Last edited:
indian_buddhist
Member
I am still studying Buddhism so I dont have enough information but following is the word of the Buddha.
The Buddha said, Oh, Bhikshu, every moment you are born, decay, and die. He meant that, every moment, the illusion of "me" renews itself. Not only is nothing carried over from one life to the next; nothing is carried over from one moment to the next.
What Is Reborn?
In his book What the Buddha Taught (1959), Theravada scholar Walpola Rahula asked,
"If we can understand that in this life we can continue without a permanent, unchanging substance like Self or Soul, why can't we understand that those forces themselves can continue without a Self or Soul behind them after the non-functioning of the body?
"When this physical body is no more capable of functioning, energies do not die with it, but continue to take some other shape or form, which we call another life. ... Physical and mental energies which constitute the so-called being have within themselves the power to take a new form, and grow gradually and gather force to the full."
Zen teacher John Daido Loori said,
"... the Buddhas experience was that when you go beyond the skandhas, beyond the aggregates, what remains is nothing. The self is an idea, a mental construct. That is not only the Buddhas experience, but the experience of each realized Buddhist man and woman from 2,500 years ago to the present day. That being the case, what is it that dies? There is no question that when this physical body is no longer capable of functioning, the energies within it, the atoms and molecules it is made up of, dont die with it. They take on another form, another shape. You can call that another life, but as there is no permanent, unchanging substance, nothing passes from one moment to the next. Quite obviously, nothing permanent or unchanging can pass or transmigrate from one life to the next. Being born and dying continues unbroken but changes every moment."
- If anatman is the truth then who is saying this?
- If Impermanence is the truth then what is the value of this teaching. This teaching is also impermanent.
- If Dukkha is the truth then there cannot be any escape.
indian_buddhist
Member
For your first question:
In Theravada Buddhism, it means anyone who has reached the total Awakening and attained Nirvana, including the Buddha. An arahant is a person who has destroyed greed, hatred, and delusion - the unwholesome roots which underlie all fetters - who upon decease will not be reborn in any world, having wholly cut off all fetters that bind a person to the samsara. In the Pali Canon, the word is sometimes used as a synonym for tathagata.[15]
After attainment of Nibbana, the five aggregates (physical forms, feelings/sensations, perception, mental formations and consciousness) will continue to function, sustained by physical bodily vitality. This attainment is termed the nibbana element with a residue remaining. But once the Arahant pass-away and with the disintegration of the physical body, the five aggregates will cease to function, hence ending all traces of existence in the phenomenal world and thus total release from the misery of samsara. It would then be termed the nibbana element without residue remaining.[16] Parinibbana occurs at the death of an Arahant.
In Theravada Buddhism the Buddha himself is first identified as an arahant, as are his enlightened followers, because they are free from all defilements, without greed, hatred, delusion, ignorance and craving, lacking "assets" which will lead to future birth, the arahant knows and sees the real here and now. This virtue shows stainless purity, true worth, and the accomplishment of the end, nibbana.[17]
2. Yes, Buddha himself said there will be a time when his teaching will be forgotten.
3. I never said Dukkha is the truth. Dukkha is the state every sentient being has to go through until that sentient being attains Nibbana or he bursts out of the cycle of birth and rebirth and only then does the suffering end.
Last edited:
Arahant sees and knows the real here and now? So, is there an entity seeing and knowing here and now or not?
Citation?
You said "Anatman(NO SELF or NO SOUL) , Anacca (Impermanence) and Dukka (Suffering) are the 3 Characteristics of Buddhism".
Is this statemet correct? Are these characteristics of Buddhism? Or are these characteristics of the truth? Or are these characteristics of samsara?
indian_buddhist
Member
Why dont u read the whole paragraph?
read this again
After attainment of Nibbana, the five aggregates (physical forms, feelings/sensations, perception, mental formations and consciousness) will continue to function, sustained by physical bodily vitality. This attainment is termed the nibbana element with a residue remaining. But once the Arahant pass-away and with the disintegration of the physical body, the five aggregates will cease to function, hence ending all traces of existence in the phenomenal world and thus total release from the misery of samsara. It would then be termed the nibbana element without residue remaining.[16] Parinibbana occurs at the death of an Arahant.
I have read it many times. These are teaching jivan mukti and videha mukti using different words.
But are you clear as to for whom will be the mukti? If there is nothing beyond the aggregates then who is aspiring for mukti and why? And who is engaging in this debate and why? You have also not answered the three questions that I put up in the earlier post.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2591829-post38.html